Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

[candycorn]

The lie is that it says Firearms, It does not say firearms, it says arms. While you assume, and even they might have assumed, that meant guns, that understanding in the law came later.

For example, if they allowed you to keep guns would they have then said okay on guns but you can't own swords? No, because swords are arms.

That "understanding" never happened. Not then. Not later. Not now. It's only in the minds of libtards does that false narrative exist. The fact is, we have a right to keep and bear arms. That is not restricted to guns. Period. The Constitution guarantees us that whatever the government (the institution that answers the people) has in its arsenal, the people can have in theirs.

I've already obliterated you in your nonsensical "can you nave nuclear weapons" argument. I'd love to do so again if you'd like.

Your fight is with M14 and Ret. They think the Constitution says Firearms, and it does not, it says Arms.

If you can’t buy land mines at Wal Mart….are you really a free man? LOL.

I love winding these fools up and watching them spin like tops.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Why do you continue to lie about this?

The lie is that it says Firearms, It does not say firearms, it says arms.

You stated previously that you fully understand the fact that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Thus, to present anything else is to lie.

Nothing in any of that nonsense negates the fact that the 2nd protects any firearm suitable for any of the traditionally legal purposes for same

It protects the right to Bear Arms, period. What that actually means came later.
View attachment 74483

You're really going to try and float this nonsense? Really?

So you really believe the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect your right to bear a sword when it protects your right to own a gun? It says, Arms, not Firearms. Stop imposing an understanding which isn't there.

To figure out what Arms actually means, you have to go to court but good luck finding a court that says you have a right to a gun but not a sword?

I never said that, I'm saying the intent of the Second was to allow the citizens the right to bear arms...which included firearms and was most certainly the main intent...given muskets were the choice of weapons in the day

 

[Jack4jill]

The lie is that it says Firearms, It does not say firearms, it says arms. While you assume, and even they might have assumed, that meant guns, that understanding in the law came later.

For example, if they allowed you to keep guns would they have then said okay on guns but you can't own swords? No, because swords are arms.

That "understanding" never happened. Not then. Not later. Not now. It's only in the minds of libtards does that false narrative exist. The fact is, we have a right to keep and bear arms. That is not restricted to guns. Period. The Constitution guarantees us that whatever the government (the institution that answers the people) has in its arsenal, the people can have in theirs.

I've already obliterated you in your nonsensical "can you nave nuclear weapons" argument. I'd love to do so again if you'd like.

Your fight is with M14 and Ret. They think the Constitution says Firearms, and it does not, it says Arms.

Firearms would be included in the "arms", fool

I would think so, and they thought so, but it says Arms, not Firearms. Puddles is correct about this.

What he's not correct about is they intended you to have everything they had.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The lie is that it says Firearms, It does not say firearms, it says arms. While you assume, and even they might have assumed, that meant guns, that understanding in the law came later.

For example, if they allowed you to keep guns would they have then said okay on guns but you can't own swords? No, because swords are arms.

That "understanding" never happened. Not then. Not later. Not now. It's only in the minds of libtards does that false narrative exist. The fact is, we have a right to keep and bear arms. That is not restricted to guns. Period. The Constitution guarantees us that whatever the government (the institution that answers the people) has in its arsenal, the people can have in theirs.

I've already obliterated you in your nonsensical "can you nave nuclear weapons" argument. I'd love to do so again if you'd like.

Your fight is with M14 and Ret. They think the Constitution says Firearms, and it does not, it says Arms.

If you can’t buy land mines at Wal Mart….are you really a free man? LOL.

I love winding these fools up and watching them spin like tops.

It's stupid, you don't wind anyone up, we simply laugh at your unbridled support of the the left loon party. You're a fool and not to be taken serious

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you can’t buy land mines at Wal Mart….are you really a free man? LOL.
I love winding these fools up and watching them spin like tops.

The only person here that does not fully recognize you are only barely capable of outwitting a melting ice cube is you.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The lie is that it says Firearms, It does not say firearms, it says arms. While you assume, and even they might have assumed, that meant guns, that understanding in the law came later.

For example, if they allowed you to keep guns would they have then said okay on guns but you can't own swords? No, because swords are arms.

That "understanding" never happened. Not then. Not later. Not now. It's only in the minds of libtards does that false narrative exist. The fact is, we have a right to keep and bear arms. That is not restricted to guns. Period. The Constitution guarantees us that whatever the government (the institution that answers the people) has in its arsenal, the people can have in theirs.

I've already obliterated you in your nonsensical "can you nave nuclear weapons" argument. I'd love to do so again if you'd like.

Your fight is with M14 and Ret. They think the Constitution says Firearms, and it does not, it says Arms.

Firearms would be included in the "arms", fool

I would think so, and they thought so, but it says Arms, not Firearms. Puddles is correct about this.

What he's not correct about is they intended you to have everything they had.

You're on a fool's errand and not fooling anyone with the exception of Corny Candy

 

[Jack4jill]

The lie is that it says Firearms, It does not say firearms, it says arms.

You stated previously that you fully understand the fact that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Thus, to present anything else is to lie.

Nothing in any of that nonsense negates the fact that the 2nd protects any firearm suitable for any of the traditionally legal purposes for same

It protects the right to Bear Arms, period. What that actually means came later.
View attachment 74483

You're really going to try and float this nonsense? Really?

So you really believe the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect your right to bear a sword when it protects your right to own a gun? It says, Arms, not Firearms. Stop imposing an understanding which isn't there.

To figure out what Arms actually means, you have to go to court but good luck finding a court that says you have a right to a gun but not a sword?

I never said that, I'm saying the intent of the Second was to allow the citizens the right to bear arms...which included firearms and was most certainly the main intent...given muskets were the choice of weapons in the day

Firearms were including but it doesn't say that and no more now does it? It says, Arms. Only by other laws have we made that mean you can have guns, swords, etc. but not nuclear ARMS.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

You stated previously that you fully understand the fact that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Thus, to present anything else is to lie.

Nothing in any of that nonsense negates the fact that the 2nd protects any firearm suitable for any of the traditionally legal purposes for same

It protects the right to Bear Arms, period. What that actually means came later.
View attachment 74483

You're really going to try and float this nonsense? Really?

So you really believe the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect your right to bear a sword when it protects your right to own a gun? It says, Arms, not Firearms. Stop imposing an understanding which isn't there.

To figure out what Arms actually means, you have to go to court but good luck finding a court that says you have a right to a gun but not a sword?

I never said that, I'm saying the intent of the Second was to allow the citizens the right to bear arms...which included firearms and was most certainly the main intent...given muskets were the choice of weapons in the day

Firearms were including but it doesn't say that and no more now does it? It says, Arms. Only by other laws have we made that mean you can have guns, swords, etc. but not nuclear ARMS.

You're an idiot, you and your fellow loon Corny Candy can discuss this nonsense. Good grief leftists are ignorant

 

[M14 Shooter]

Firearms were including but it doesn't say that and no more now does it? It says, Arms. Only by other laws have we made that mean you can have guns, swords, etc. but not nuclear ARMS.

And so.... what's your point?

 

[Jack4jill]

The lie is that it says Firearms, It does not say firearms, it says arms. While you assume, and even they might have assumed, that meant guns, that understanding in the law came later.

For example, if they allowed you to keep guns would they have then said okay on guns but you can't own swords? No, because swords are arms.

That "understanding" never happened. Not then. Not later. Not now. It's only in the minds of libtards does that false narrative exist. The fact is, we have a right to keep and bear arms. That is not restricted to guns. Period. The Constitution guarantees us that whatever the government (the institution that answers the people) has in its arsenal, the people can have in theirs.

I've already obliterated you in your nonsensical "can you nave nuclear weapons" argument. I'd love to do so again if you'd like.

Your fight is with M14 and Ret. They think the Constitution says Firearms, and it does not, it says Arms.

Firearms would be included in the "arms", fool

I would think so, and they thought so, but it says Arms, not Firearms. Puddles is correct about this.

What he's not correct about is they intended you to have everything they had.

You're on a fool's errand and not fooling anyone with the exception of Corny Candy

The fools are the ones trying to say what the Constitution says, when it doesn't actually say that.

If you want to help Puddles understand why he can own his only nuke, you aren't helping.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

That "understanding" never happened. Not then. Not later. Not now. It's only in the minds of libtards does that false narrative exist. The fact is, we have a right to keep and bear arms. That is not restricted to guns. Period. The Constitution guarantees us that whatever the government (the institution that answers the people) has in its arsenal, the people can have in theirs.

I've already obliterated you in your nonsensical "can you nave nuclear weapons" argument. I'd love to do so again if you'd like.

Your fight is with M14 and Ret. They think the Constitution says Firearms, and it does not, it says Arms.

Firearms would be included in the "arms", fool

I would think so, and they thought so, but it says Arms, not Firearms. Puddles is correct about this.

What he's not correct about is they intended you to have everything they had.

You're on a fool's errand and not fooling anyone with the exception of Corny Candy

The fools are the ones trying to say what the Constitution says, when it doesn't actually say that.

If you want to help Puddles understand why he can own his only nuke, you aren't helping.

I repeat, you're on a fool's errand and I have no time nor desire for you and your Corny little friend's nonsense.

 

[Jack4jill]

Firearms were including but it doesn't say that and no more now does it? It says, Arms. Only by other laws have we made that mean you can have guns, swords, etc. but not nuclear ARMS.

And so.... what's your point?

My point was made pages ago. Stop believing that the 2nd Amendment means guns. It doesn't.

And why we decided to stop with guns makes Puddles mad. He wants what they have and the Constitution itself doesn't say that can't be true.

 

[Jack4jill]

It protects the right to Bear Arms, period. What that actually means came later.
View attachment 74483

You're really going to try and float this nonsense? Really?

So you really believe the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect your right to bear a sword when it protects your right to own a gun? It says, Arms, not Firearms. Stop imposing an understanding which isn't there.

To figure out what Arms actually means, you have to go to court but good luck finding a court that says you have a right to a gun but not a sword?

I never said that, I'm saying the intent of the Second was to allow the citizens the right to bear arms...which included firearms and was most certainly the main intent...given muskets were the choice of weapons in the day

Firearms were including but it doesn't say that and no more now does it? It says, Arms. Only by other laws have we made that mean you can have guns, swords, etc. but not nuclear ARMS.

You're an idiot, you and your fellow loon Corny Candy can discuss this nonsense. Good grief leftists are ignorant

You are the one doing the trolling, not me.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Firearms were including but it doesn't say that and no more now does it? It says, Arms. Only by other laws have we made that mean you can have guns, swords, etc. but not nuclear ARMS.

And so.... what's your point?

My point was made pages ago. Stop believing that the 2nd Amendment means guns. It doesn't.

It unquestionably includes all firearms, and it always has.
What else matters, and why?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

You're really going to try and float this nonsense? Really?

So you really believe the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect your right to bear a sword when it protects your right to own a gun? It says, Arms, not Firearms. Stop imposing an understanding which isn't there.

To figure out what Arms actually means, you have to go to court but good luck finding a court that says you have a right to a gun but not a sword?

I never said that, I'm saying the intent of the Second was to allow the citizens the right to bear arms...which included firearms and was most certainly the main intent...given muskets were the choice of weapons in the day

Firearms were including but it doesn't say that and no more now does it? It says, Arms. Only by other laws have we made that mean you can have guns, swords, etc. but not nuclear ARMS.

You're an idiot, you and your fellow loon Corny Candy can discuss this nonsense. Good grief leftists are ignorant

You are the one doing the trolling, not me.

Here, now enough with your nonsense.

Why can't I own nuclear weapons? The Second Amendment guarantees it! [THREAD THREE]

 

[2aguy]

Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer[/URL]


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

 

[P@triot]

If you can’t buy land mines at Wal Mart….are you really a free man? LOL.

I love winding these fools up and watching them spin like tops.

Yeah....right. You are so frustrated that everything you have attempted for making your case has been shot down with facts that now you're just pretending like you find this amusing. The problem is for you is that your frustration is palpable my dear. If your'e going to pretend like you're enjoying this, then you need to do a better job of hiding your anger.

By the way, I have a friend who has a fully automatic Uzi with a silencer. True story. I can't tell you how many people have claimed to us that those are "illegal". Because, well, liberals are just uneducated. Now, he did have to file paperwork with the ATF and get approved, but he did and he was. Man is it fun to shoot that thing. Every time I fire it I just think of Corny losing her mind like a typical unhinged emotional train wreck liberal. I'm thinking I might just take some video of us unloading an entire clip and post it for Corny....

 

[M14 Shooter]

[

By the way, I have a friend who is a fully automatic Uzi with a silencer. True story. I can't tell you how many people have claimed to us that those are "illegal". Because, well, liberals are just uneducated. Now, he did have to file paperwork with the ATF and get approved, but he did and he was. Man is it fun to shoot that thing. Every time I fire it I just think of Corny losing her mind like a typical unhinged emotional train wreck liberal. I'm thinking I might just take some video of us unloading an entire clip and post if for Corny....

A friend of mine is a 2A defense attorney - he has several suppressed FA sub-guns.
If you can legally own a gun, all you need to get a machine gun is time and money.

 

[Jack4jill]

Firearms were including but it doesn't say that and no more now does it? It says, Arms. Only by other laws have we made that mean you can have guns, swords, etc. but not nuclear ARMS.

And so.... what's your point?

My point was made pages ago. Stop believing that the 2nd Amendment means guns. It doesn't.

It unquestionably includes all firearms, and it always has.
What else matters, and why?

What matters is firearms are not the only arms. And they weren't even then so when Puddles says, according to the Constitution, that he has the right to bear arms, all arms, he's correct. That is what the Constitution actually says. What that means is something else entirely, something the courts and society have had to work out.

Don't impose an understanding that isn't there.

 

[2aguy]

Australia has tough gun laws.
They have very few gun deaths.

We have tons of guns.
We have tons of gun deaths.

Coincidence? No.

Australia had few gun deaths before they confiscated their guns....and their criminals still have guns after the confiscation...they gained nothing from confiscating guns.

Australia is seeing an increase in gun crime........with confiscation and extreme gun control...

We have increased our gun ownership by 10s of millions and our gun murder rate has gone down.....

And in about 3,000 (sarcasm) years, they may have enough gun deaths to be just like us. I bet they can’t wait.

No one said they did...in fact...I am the one who keeps telling you morons that gun access does not determine gun murder rates.....I keep telling you and you fail to understand that the values of the criminals...their sub culture and their attitude toward murder determine the gun murder rate.......

That is why in the United States...more Americans have bought, owned and now carry guns for self defense...and our gun murder rate went down, not up.

That is also why more whites in the United States own guns but commit fewer gun murders...while fewer blacks own guns and commit the majority of gun murders......

so you are wrong on that too........

It is also why in Britain their gun crime rate did not change after they confiscated guns...it spiked the first years after the confiscation and then returned to the same level...

Which means that their gun confiscation and extreme gun control laws did not affect the gun crime rate....access to guns did not change their criminals attitude toward murder.....and their criminals are still able to get guns.......

Australia......their gun crime is going up....after the confiscation....